alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009113EN.01001001.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2009 — Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Sun Microsystems Inc.

(Case C-21/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word and figurative mark ‘SUNPLUS’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word marks ‘SUN’ - Refusal of registration)

2009/C 113/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Lochner and H. Gauß, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Sun Microsystems Inc. (represented by: M. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 in Case T-38/04 Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action brought, by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘SUNPLUS’ for goods in Class 9, against decision R 642/2000-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 October 2003, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the opposition division which refused an application for registration of that mark in opposition proceedings initiated by the holder of the national figurative and word trade marks ‘SUN’ for goods in Class 9 — Similarity between the marks — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
# C_2019423EN.01001902.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/19

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 October 2019 — Andrew Clarke v European Commission

(Case C-284/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Action for annulment - Actions for failure to act - Refusal of the European Commission to bring infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU against a Member State)

(2019/C 423/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Andrew Clarke (represented by: E. Lock, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Andrew Clarke shall pay his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Andrew Clarke shall pay his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
H. Res. 901 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 28, 2016. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

5325) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider 

in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a 

motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 

amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be 

considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 

hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN
THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,101,573
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,716,642
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (237,738)
<INVENTORY>                                  6,425,247
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,949,800
<PP&E>                                       3,532,581
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,768,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,153,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,803,678
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,998,049
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,436,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,153,052
<SALES>                                     11,263,466
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,263,466
<CGS>                                        5,245,753
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,793,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               167,501
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             163,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,320,613
<INCOME-TAX>                                   928,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,392,413
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,392,413
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
June 28, 2002

24057

#### In re Adoption of a Female Child

Affirmed
EX-10.3.3



 Exhibit 10.3.3 

Joinder Agreement for Stock Purchase Agreement 

entered into in connection with the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock Offering 

JELD-WEN Holding, inc. shareholders date and sign below. 

JOINDER AGREEMENT 
 The
undersigned is executing and delivering this Joinder Agreement (this “Joinder Agreement”) pursuant to Section 6.3 of that certain Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 30, 2012, by and among Onex Partners III
LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“Onex”), and such Affiliates of Onex as may, from time to time, become parties to the Stock Purchase Agreement by executing and delivering a joinder to the Stock Purchase Agreement
(collectively with Onex, the “Onex Investors”), JELD-WEN Holding, inc., an Oregon corporation (the “Company”), and such other parties as may, from time to time,
become parties thereto in accordance with the terms thereof by executing and delivering a joinder to the Stock Purchase Agreement (collectively with the Onex Investors, the “Investors”) (the “Stock Purchase
Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Stock Purchase Agreement. 

By executing and delivering this Joinder Agreement, the undersigned hereby agrees to be bound as an Investor under the Stock Purchase
Agreement in accordance with and as provided in Section 6.3 thereof, including to make all representations and warranties of the Investors thereunder, effective as of the date hereof. 

Accordingly, the undersigned has executed and delivered this Joinder Agreement as of the    day of
            , 2012. 
  

	
	
	  

(Signature)

	
	  

	(Printed Name)









 SCHEDULE OF PARTIES TO EXHIBIT 10.3.3 
  

					
		 	Name	 	
			
		 	  
 Lisa Bode
	 	
			
		 	Randy Cox	 	
			
		 	The Jewel W. Kintzinger Rev Trust	 	
			
		 	Douglas Kintzinger	 	
			
		 	Richard Lee	 	
			
		 	Jean-Jacques Nayral	 	
			
		 	Marc Ouellet	 	
			
		 	Roald Pederson	 	
			
		 	Daniel Prince
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange
Act; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Zix Corporation.
 /s/ Richard D. SpurrName:
    Richard D. SpurrTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Susan K. ConnerName:
    Susan K. ConnerTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
Reinstated and Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum 

Opinion filed February 13, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-01050-CV

IN RE LISA LUXENBURG, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-29603

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 22, 2013, relator Lisa Luxenburg filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Ken 

Wise, the former presiding judge of the 334th District Court of Harris County, to 

set aside his October 7, 2013 order granting the motion to abate the proceeding and 

compel arbitration filed by real party in interest J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. 
2

Judge Wise, however, is no longer presiding judge of the 334th District 

Court because he is now serving as a justice on this Court. Therefore, Judge 

Wise’s successor, the Honorable Grant Dorfman, is now the respondent. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 7.2(a). We abated this original proceeding to allow Judge Dorfman to 

reconsider the October 7, 2013 order. See id. 7.2(b). Judge Dorfman has 

reconsidered the original decision and has signed an order granting J.C. Penney

Corporation, Inc.’s motion to abate the proceeding and compel arbitration.

After considering the merits of relator’s petition, we conclude that relator 

has not established her entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison.
# C_2018392EN.01003102.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/31

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Aquino and Others v Parliament

(Case T-402/18 R)

((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Interpreters’ strike action - Measures of requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Application for interim measures - Inadmissible in part - Balance of interests))

(2018/C 392/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Aquino (Brussels, Belgium) and the 30 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, the suspension of the application of the decisions of the European Parliament of 2 and 3 July 2018 requisitioning interpreters and future decisions requisitioning interpreters on 5, 10 and 11 July 2018 and, second, an order that the Parliament limit the requisitions of interpreters in future.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
July 27, 2000

21537

#### Hanawahine v. State

Affirmed
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

980 P.2d 997

#### O'Connor v. County of Maui

19060

5/11/98

Affirmed & Remanded in part
# C_2022266EN.01000401.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti — Romania) — IO v Impuls Leasing România IFN SA

(Case C-725/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Enforcement proceedings in respect of a leasing contract constituting an enforceable instrument - Objection to enforcement - National legislation not allowing the court hearing that objection to determine whether the terms of an enforceable instrument are unfair - Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion whether a term is unfair - Existence of an action under ordinary law allowing the review of whether those terms were unfair - Requirement of a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings)

(2022/C 266/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IO

Defendant: Impuls Leasing România IFN SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not allow the court hearing the enforcement proceedings in respect of a debt, before which an objection to enforcement has been lodged, to assess, of its own motion, or at the request of the consumer, whether the terms of a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier which constitutes an enforceable instrument are unfair, where the court having jurisdiction to rule on the substance of the case, which may be seised of a separate action under the ordinary law with a view to an assessment as to whether the terms of that contract are unfair, may only suspend the enforcement proceedings until a decision has been given on the substance if a security is paid at a level that is likely to dissuade the consumer from bringing and maintaining such an action.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7597

STEVEN ANTWONE WATSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp,

Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-853-1)

Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Antwone Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s exercise of

jurisdiction in the case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)

(2000).

2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Antwone Watson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).*

 The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

Watson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7739

STEWART RUSSELL BUCHANAN; JANICE A. BRADLEY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

DAVID BEASLEY, Governor; MICHAEL W. MOORE,

Commissioner; GEORGE ROOF; CARL FREDRICKS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-96-1894-3-18BC)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 30, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stewart Russell Buchanan, Janice A. Bradley, Appellants Pro Se.

Charles Elford Carpenter, Jr., Georgia Anna Mitchell, RICHARDSON,

PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date Appellant wrote on his notice of appeal is the earliest date it would

have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack, 487

U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing

notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods

are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have

thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of

appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The

only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court

extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on August 29, 1997; Appellants filed a timely motion for extension of time to file a Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The district court entered its order

denying Appellants' motion on October 6, 1997. Appellants' notice

of appeal was filed on November 21, 1997,* which is beyond the

thirty-day appeal period. Appellants' failure to note a timely

appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this

court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellants'

appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 79 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Rules in the One 

Hundred Fourteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

Mr. SESSIONS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Rules in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Rules (here4 after in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’), 

5 including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be 

6 paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House of Rep7 resentatives for committee salaries and expenses, not more 

8 than $5,771,964 for the One Hundred Fourteenth Con9 gress. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 79 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $2,885,982 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2015, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2016; and 

7 (2) not more than $2,885,982 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2016, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2017. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
October 19, 2000

23118

#### State v. Menor

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 900 

Providing for the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 769) terminating 

a Select Investigative Panel of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 

769) terminating a Select Investigative Panel of the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

1 Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this res2 olution the House shall consider without intervention of 

3 any point of order the resolution (H. Res. 769) termi4 nating a Select Investigative Panel of the Committee on 

5 Energy and Commerce. The resolution shall be considered 

6 as read. The previous question shall be considered as or7 dered on the resolution to adoption without intervening 

8 motion or demand for division of the question except one 

9 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 

10 and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 900 IH 

1 SEC. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to 

2 the consideration of H. Res. 769. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS